Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

317 Excellent

About rasta013

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

2,071 profile views
  1. @MaxL_1023 @CatastrophicFailure @Aelfhe1m @Gilph @astroheiko Man I wish I had more time this week to seriously dig into this...my brain is about to explode with hypotheticals... Something I came across and have not had a chance to work through the math on yet but it has direct bearing on this conversation. There's n upper limit on how much dV can be obtained from an assist but I've never worked through it before. (never occurred to me to even try maximizing this in KSP until now...) https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128356/gravitational-slingshot-maximum Now, th
  2. This is your best bet. I have a saved parts directory from DMOS that I move in once I install PP to trim them out as well. If you do a lot of this you might take a look at Janitor's Closet since it allows you to both prune or hide and anything hidden can always be restored later...
  3. Yup. They were removed because of some small issues arising around them. In the next update the reports will start making their return and each update after that I will be adding more and more until all stock experiments are completed for all bodies in GPP. This is obviously a long term project but they will be returning.
  4. Indeed. Another good suggestion and likely would result in a quicker route than Otho/Nero - again...haven't plugged any of these in yet and kind of spit balling here but @MaxL_1023 is likely on to the best idea with this one and past experience would indicate it's a good chance.
  5. Well - I use the GUI anytime it's there since I generally know exactly which nose/mount I'm looking for and can get to it a lot quicker using the GUI. That said, if it's easier to do it via slider and results in less work/maintenance welllll..... Convenience is a beautiful thing but I'd sacrifice it in a heartbeat if it's easier for you since the selection ability is the important piece, not the convenience.
  6. No I haven't but to be honest, I also haven't toyed very heavily with it for the long intercepts. Typically, I pull KSPTOT when I want to plan complicated multi-body fly-bys Voyager style. I've also used it for a few out-body shots for gravity assists in early points of careers to take advantage of physics instead of tech, but again that's a multi-body approach use as well. AND I haven't made an attempt yet at one of these types of approaches to get to Grannus either. So that's the long version of "No." EDIT: But now you've got me thinking and just wondering (haven't plugged this in y
  7. It's known and is working on being addressed in coming releases.
  8. Great addition man! Just as a note on this...the only other lab of consequence in BDB is Skylab and this is such a good idea I may run with it a bit and add the Zoology bay to Skylab as well since that would give both labs necessary for Station Science. Really good idea!
  9. I think I mentioned this a while back when I first jumped on this thread but for complicated flight paths and multi-body encounters you can use @Arrowstar's KSP Trajectory Optimization Tool. It is an external tool that interfaces with KSP to extract and inject information into the game. With it you can plan literally any kind of flight path you want. It is by far the most robust tool available for flight planning. It works with GPP but you will have to create a custom Bodies.ini file for it although that is a very simple process. The learning curve for this tool is steep but well worth th
  10. OK - so did some digging on this question for you and here's what I've found. The Polyus FGB was, of course, the Soviet Star Wars platform. It was mated to Energia via the FGB Block (Functional Cargo Block) and the FGB Block used for the Polyus was the standard TKS platform made up of the 11F74 and 11F77 pieces (VA and FGB blocks). The Polyus FGB was launched strangely (upside down which lead to its untimely demise) but it doesn't appear that anything besides the inertial navigation system was different in that block leading me to the conclusion that it's the standard propulsion used on
  11. I love the idea of #3 but I completely understand the hesitation in introducing something that is likely going to result in support requests. With this in mind I favor #1. Even though the part list may be extensive the nightmare of recoloring by having to select each individual part and hunt down each button on each part is worse. With #1, would it be possible to use part highlighting to identify which part is being targeted as you scroll over the list? That bit would make identifying the part you're working on easier for large craft and keep us from having to constantly hunt down buttons i
  12. New one to add to the Compatible list for contract packs: Kerbal Academy seems to be working fully. I've been able to receive contracts for all the classes and for off world bodies. Looking through the code of the pack itself I do not see anything that should throw it off either. Unless someone else has run into something (been testing this for about 2 weeks) I think it can be safely added to the list now.
  13. New screenies of the LEM look MUCH improved over the first ones. Looks considerably better even if not proper without PBR...
  14. On that last pic I understand where you're trying to go with it and the back panels are good for now even though they were historically a lot more f'd up by the time they land. The one thing for me is the foil. It seems kind of flat and dull looking from this angle. I don't know if that's a simple product of the lighting angle that it's sitting at though. One other thing, the shadows in the folds of the foil look a bit too dark...again that may be a product of lighting angle but those are the things that jump at out me. EDIT: Flat isn't the right word...dull sheen and less "pop" than
  • Create New...